Debating vs discussions

[Jonn]

Personally, I dislike debates and try to avoid them where I can.
I prefer "discussions".

What is debating?​

A debate is a structured contest over an issue or policy. There are two sides - one supporting, one opposing.

https://au.search.yahoo.com/yhs/sea...&param1=4056&param2=84481&p=What+is+"debating

discussion
/dɪˈskʌʃn/

noun

• 1. the action or process of talking about something in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas:

https://au.search.yahoo.com/yhs/sea...am1=4056&param2=84481&p=What+is+a+discussion?

The problem with debates, for me, is that, by definition, it is combative.
Two sides argue with the intent of dominating the other side through point scoring.

Since I am more interested in the Truth of the situation, I'd rather not have to wade through the spin and misrepresentations that inherently accompany a debating style of interaction.
Strawman arguments and logical fallacies may be part of the weaponry of a debating arena, but I find it more satisfying to share enlightenment/information than engage in an attempt at dominance.

Pax...

 

[Slime_Punk]

I have a lot of trouble with NTs due to this; they always seem to want to convince you to agree with them wholeheartedly (and deem you 'wrong' if you don't), whereas I'm more of the 'this is how I see it, how do you see it?' type of person.

I still don't understand why a lot of NTs feel discomfort when you disagree with them, either. If humans didn't disagree with each other on a bunch of stuff, nothing would ever be interesting in life. I swear I don't hate NTs, I just don't fully understand their debating / discussing style as much as I'd like to.

 

[Jonn]

I have a lot of trouble with NTs due to this; they always seem to want to convince you to agree with them wholeheartedly (and deem you 'wrong' if you don't), whereas I'm more of the 'this is how I see it, how do you see it?' type of person.

A lot of people are comfortable with "groupthink".

I still don't understand why a lot of NTs feel discomfort when you disagree with them, either. If humans didn't disagree with each other on a bunch of stuff, nothing would ever be interesting in life. I swear I don't hate NTs, I just don't fully understand their debating / discussing style as much as I'd like to.

This behaviour is the nature of the NT beast, but I have met aspies who are into groupthink also.
I expected better.
Live and learn, I guess.

Traditional autistics are very individualistic, btw.
I am one.

 

[Au Naturel]

People find it difficult to agree to disagree. It is doubly true these days where each side of every issue seems to think the other side is subhuman.

 

[Jonn]

People find it difficult to agree to disagree. It is doubly true these days where each side of every issue seems to think the other side is subhuman.

"Agree to disagree" is my motto.
I find it odd and funny how people get upset over nothing.

 

[Atrapa Almas]

The group vs group stuff and the superiority stuff is very strong in human brains, NT and ND alike.

Each time we made distictions in the sense of: This is the correct way of thinking/behaving it automatically implys that those who disagree are wrong and inferior to those who agree.

Let me put some examples:

I find it odd and funny how people get upset over nothing.

In this example, people "who get upset over "nothing"" are wrong and we (the superior ones who are right) can think they are odd and funny.

Who decides what is "nothing" and what is "something" to get upset over? Of course US are who can decide and judge that. The superior ones.

Another example:

A lot of people are comfortable with "groupthink".

This behaviour is the nature of the NT beast, but I have met aspies who are into groupthink also.
I expected better.
Live and learn, I guess.

Traditional autistics are very individualistic, btw.
I am one.

So as Group thinking is the nature of the NT beasts (note the animalistic tag to set clear that they are inferior) the individualistic autistics are superior. And guess who is a very individualistic person (and not a NT beast). The author of course.

And if by chance a NT subhuman beast reads this and get offended we can simply claim that they are getting upset over nothing. Or we can also claim they are very sentitive. And we can also claim that "stick and stones can break your bones". We simply must blame the victim of our words and keep claiming that we are such pacifists and how well we have debates over discussions.

After all the ones who will get angry with our words are wrong by definition, beasts, and upset over nothing. Unlike the traditional superior ones that just need to agree with us to join the superiority club.

Its very dificult not to belive that out way of thinking is superior. Its very dificult not to think we/I is right and you/others are wrong.

Thats the importance of the Neurodiversity word. Diversity means there is no wrong or rigth. Diversity of opinions, believes and behavour do also means there is no wrong or rigth.

But almost none of us can get to think that out inner values, beliefs, behavours and thougths are just posibilities on the human divergence. Its almost impossibe not think we are superior to those we dislike.

And thats why, when we claim that we are right those who think/behave different may be offended. We are claiming our superiority over them.

To express our ideas in an assertive neutral way that do not claim our superiority is very dificult, and not get offended/angry when we see other people claiming (directly or indirectly) that they are better than us is also very difficult.

We (humans) seem to be wired for arguments.

Pax...

 

[Jonn]

The group vs group stuff and the superiority stuff is very strong in human brains, NT and ND alike.

We, as organisms resulting out of the evolutionary process, heavily tend to be tribalistic, I agree.

Each time we made distictions in the sense of: This is the correct way of thinking/behaving it automatically implys that those who disagree are wrong and inferior to those who agree.

No, that is your inference that happens to be incorrect in the context I am using.
I am not implying people with different opinions are inferior.
(To each their own, whatever floats your boat, whatever bakes your cookies.)
I am referring to the quality of the argument presented.

If an argument is fallacious and not logically valid, the argument is indeed inferior.
If people misrepresent what has been said, I.E. create a "strawman", their argument is indeed inferior.

Pax.

 

[Jonn]

Atrapa Almas said: Let me put some examples:

I find it odd and funny how people get upset over nothing.

I do "find it odd and funny" how arguments are created from misunderstanding.
Don't you?

 

[Jonn]

In this example, people "who get upset over "nothing"" are wrong and we (the superior ones who are right) can think they are odd and funny.

I think someone who creates a strawman argument presents an inferior argument, yes.
If someone misrepresents what has been said, it invalidates an argument, yes.

 

[Brictoria]

I find it strange how people are able to take a statement which can be read across a wide spectrum of possible meanings (from an innocent "expression of curiosity" through to a fixed "statement of values") and imply a specific explanation for the words without clarifying with the author as to what they meant by them.

Too often such conversations end in debates ("You meant ABC" Vs "I meant XYZ"), rather than discussions ("I think you meant ABC because..." and "I meant XYZ because..."), which is unfortunate.

Personally, I see debates as having some value, providing each side is willing to incorporate the "other side" and it's views in what they say, rather than repeat the same message continually... From what I have seen, debates tend to end in a "winner" and a "loser" ("Trials", for example, "debating" whether something occurred\someone did something), whereas discussions tend to end in a "compromise", or at least a better understanding by each side of the other's view.

Debates are more useful for trying to convince a 3rd party\non participant, whereas discussions tend to be about convincing the other party in the discussion (or challenging your own view on the subject matter).

 

[Knower of nothing]

Proper logical debates require experts. Discussions can be held by anyone. I doubt most of us here are well learned in logical argumentation. So our potential debates would be sloppy and inaccurate and at that point it's more damaging than worthwhile. Debates however, are far more interested in the truth. It's why they are so rigid and have you establish in utmost precision what it is you are trying to say and why. Discussions simply share viewpoints, all of which could be incorrect or inaccurately presented as that's still just how you view it. You learn something still, but not necessarily truth of the topic.
(Also the irony of starting a thread about how you try avoid debates and instantly engaging in one in said thread made me laugh.)

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

Political debates are the best examples of how not to do it.

 

[Tom]

Don't forget airstrikes.

 

[tree]

Any threads on this site are expected to be discussions,
not debates. Debates are contests with Winners and Losers.

Discussions take place among individuals considering information
and points of view.